Just to clarify - I believe the bill only applies to England and Wales - just check the text of the bill itself. (This is the way parliaments across the UK work...separately...something akin to Quebec within Canada, but not exactly the same).
And, as I understand, self-administration is the only option allowed in any of the 11 US jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal - not just Oregon. This is likely due in large part to the AMA Code of Ethics explicitly prohibiting physician administered euthanasia.
Nonetheless, your comments about the unfortunate restrictions and excessive safeguards of the bill are on the mark. As you say, a requirement to get this passed.
It will likely be that the involvement of a High Court judge will soon be understood to be unnecessary and a great impediment to many requests being fulfilled, given they are by definition coming from people always near the end of life.
It's an example of the difference between laws arising from MP's bills (as in the England/Wales and other places) versus those that arise from Charter challenges in the courts (as in Canada). The UK has no Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make that possible.
I live in a small town in Canada where assisted dying has been a blessing for friends and neighbours who've died with terrible cancers. So I'm beyond happy to hear of the British change of heart and law, after so many years. But also disappointed because needing to go before a judge will impose an extra burden of suffering on each applicant. I hope the British court system will find the heart to make that the shortest wait possible.
However, the invocation of 'slippery slopes' will continue with every proposal to amend the eventual law, notwithstanding the fact that these statements are not actual arguments, merely expositions of one's own fears.
The slippery slope of one person is the uphill struggle of another.
Neither of those 'positions' is an argument or based on anything rational, per se...so one must always expect more than the simple fear mongering they are.
“Providers are also permitted to mention assisted dying without needing to be asked about it by the patient” - this is an incredible mistake. Can you imagine what it would be like if I said to one of my counselling clients who came to see me “you know, you can always complete suicide, this is an option on the table for you” - I hope I would be banned from practicing as a psychologist in my province. If you’ve been a professional clinician in any capacity, you will know the impact of our words is huge. Patients have told me they still think of words I said years ago I’ve long since forgotten. This is a huge risk to the integrity of our profession. While some patients may find a conversation initiated by a physician useful, so many others will feel shocked and deeply upset by such an offer. I do not support this law in this regard.
Ironic that there are people who want to live but who the UK Government let die (1,313 people died in the UK in 2022 whilst experiencing homelessness) and there are people who the UK Government are knowingly pushing to suicide (DWP Universal Credit welfare claimants - 600 suicides were covered-up and evidence destroyed by the DWP) and there are people who are dying from medical neglect (the slow privatisation of the NHS) and people dying from poverty, but if someone dares to decide that they want to exit on their own terms they will be blocked, pathologised, gaslighted and in some cases criminalised. Pro-lifers are a mafia of existential slave owners.
Just to clarify - I believe the bill only applies to England and Wales - just check the text of the bill itself. (This is the way parliaments across the UK work...separately...something akin to Quebec within Canada, but not exactly the same).
And, as I understand, self-administration is the only option allowed in any of the 11 US jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal - not just Oregon. This is likely due in large part to the AMA Code of Ethics explicitly prohibiting physician administered euthanasia.
Nonetheless, your comments about the unfortunate restrictions and excessive safeguards of the bill are on the mark. As you say, a requirement to get this passed.
It will likely be that the involvement of a High Court judge will soon be understood to be unnecessary and a great impediment to many requests being fulfilled, given they are by definition coming from people always near the end of life.
It's an example of the difference between laws arising from MP's bills (as in the England/Wales and other places) versus those that arise from Charter challenges in the courts (as in Canada). The UK has no Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make that possible.
I live in a small town in Canada where assisted dying has been a blessing for friends and neighbours who've died with terrible cancers. So I'm beyond happy to hear of the British change of heart and law, after so many years. But also disappointed because needing to go before a judge will impose an extra burden of suffering on each applicant. I hope the British court system will find the heart to make that the shortest wait possible.
However, the invocation of 'slippery slopes' will continue with every proposal to amend the eventual law, notwithstanding the fact that these statements are not actual arguments, merely expositions of one's own fears.
The slippery slope of one person is the uphill struggle of another.
Neither of those 'positions' is an argument or based on anything rational, per se...so one must always expect more than the simple fear mongering they are.
Love your formulation of one person's slippery slope being another person's uphill battle.
Thanks Kevin. You're right: just England and Wales.
Please watch this <5min video if you would like to see how an offer for euthanasia can come across to a patient https://youtu.be/yQq5jOMIFLo?si=95QcECZRoLCDVVXy
“Providers are also permitted to mention assisted dying without needing to be asked about it by the patient” - this is an incredible mistake. Can you imagine what it would be like if I said to one of my counselling clients who came to see me “you know, you can always complete suicide, this is an option on the table for you” - I hope I would be banned from practicing as a psychologist in my province. If you’ve been a professional clinician in any capacity, you will know the impact of our words is huge. Patients have told me they still think of words I said years ago I’ve long since forgotten. This is a huge risk to the integrity of our profession. While some patients may find a conversation initiated by a physician useful, so many others will feel shocked and deeply upset by such an offer. I do not support this law in this regard.
Ironic that there are people who want to live but who the UK Government let die (1,313 people died in the UK in 2022 whilst experiencing homelessness) and there are people who the UK Government are knowingly pushing to suicide (DWP Universal Credit welfare claimants - 600 suicides were covered-up and evidence destroyed by the DWP) and there are people who are dying from medical neglect (the slow privatisation of the NHS) and people dying from poverty, but if someone dares to decide that they want to exit on their own terms they will be blocked, pathologised, gaslighted and in some cases criminalised. Pro-lifers are a mafia of existential slave owners.